Thread: Panasonic 12-35mm review by Steve Huff

The Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 Zoom Lens Review for Micro 4/3! Zoom zoom zoom! | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

I find it interesting that he never mention the Pana 7-14.

It's a kind of specialty lens, very expensive also, I was lucky to find a second hand one but I don't use it much, the focal length isn't as useful as the oly 9-18 but eh 2mm gain on the short end does make quite a difference in perspective.

Originally Posted by Julien

I find it interesting that he never mention the Pana 7-14.

I agree with you. I was just annoyed about the original title of this article, which has now apparently been changed. It was titled: "The best zoom available for m4/3 by far" or something like that (it is still visible in the url). With statements like that you need to compare the lens to what was until now the best zoom available, and unless I'm mistaken it's the Pana 7-14. Now he has changed the title, so my point is moot.

Coming back to the 12-35, I'm rather perplexed with this lens, everybody compares it to the 24-70 from canikon for size and weight issues but I must say that on the u4/3 it is equivalent to a 5.6 zoom lens on a FF body, so they are comparing apples and oranges. F2 would have better, could have been possible without IOS maybe. I wonder what Oly will come up with?

Originally Posted by Julien

I agree with you. I was just annoyed about the original title of this article, which has now apparently been changed. It was titled: "The best zoom available for m4/3 by far" or something like that (it is still visible in the url). With statements like that you need to compare the lens to what was until now the best zoom available, and unless I'm mistaken it's the Pana 7-14. Now he has changed the title, so my point moot.

Originally Posted by KianO

Coming back to the 12-35, I'm rather perplexed with this lens, everybody compares it to the 24-70 from canikon for size and weight issues but I must say that on the u4/3 it is equivalent to a 5.6 zoom lens on a FF body, so they are comparing apples and oranges. F2 would have better, could have been possible without IOS maybe. I wonder what Oly will come up with?

That's the tradeoff with m43 to begin with. F2.8 is f2.8 in terms of light gathering and low light shooting, but in terms of DOF, it like f5.6 on a full frame. Just as the Pany 25 f1.4 is like f2.8 on a full frame, etc. In terms of shallow DOF, this is not the same as a full frame 24-70 f2.8, but for shooting weddings or other low-ish light events where you need a zoom, it's the first m43 zoom to get you there.

I think it's as reasonable a comparison as comparing ANY m43 lens to a FF "equivalent". They're all equal in some ways and not in others. That's a given.

-Ray

Originally Posted by Ray

That's the tradeoff with m43 to begin with. F2.8 is f2.8 in terms of light gathering and low light shooting, but in terms of DOF, it like f5.6 on a full frame. Just as the Pany 25 f1.4 is like f2.8 on a full frame, etc. In terms of shallow DOF, this is not the same as a full frame 24-70 f2.8, but for shooting weddings or other low-ish light events where you need a zoom, it's the first m43 zoom to get you there.

I think it's as reasonable a comparison as comparing ANY m43 lens to a FF "equivalent". They're all equal in some ways and not in others. That's a given.

-Ray

I agree with Ray. And for those that want a little more DOF but are limited with the amount of light, m43 with this lens might be a better solution to bumping up iso.